United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
LISA C. STURGILL, Plaintiff,
v.
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Susan
Collins United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff
Lisa C. Sturgill filed this case against her former employer,
Schneider Electric (“Schneider”), in Huntington
Circuit Court on November 9, 2017, alleging that Schneider
retaliated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et
seq. (“Title VII”). (DE 5). Schneider
removed the case here under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on December
7, 2017.[1] (DE 1).
Now
before the Court is Schneider's motion for summary
judgment (DE 31), together with a supporting memorandum and
evidence (DE 32), filed on January 22, 2019. Sturgill filed a
response brief in opposition to the motion on March 5, 2019,
and Schneider timely filed a reply brief on March 19, 2019.
(DE 36; DE 37). Therefore, the motion for summary judgment is
ripe for ruling. For the following reasons, the Court will
GRANT Schneider's motion for summary judgment[2]
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[3]
Schneider,
a company based near Boston, Massachusetts, is engaged in the
manufacture of power distribution transformers. (DE 32-2 at
223). Schneider operates numerous facilities across the
country, including a plant in Huntington, Indiana. (DE 32-2
at 223).
Sturgill
was hired by Schneider on January 9, 2012, to work at its
Huntington, Indiana, plant and remained employed there until
her termination on July 26, 2016. (DE 32-2 at 10, 223).
Throughout her employment, Sturgill worked as an hourly-paid
production worker and was represented by the International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge
2574 (the “Union”). (DE 32-2 at 33, 223). The
terms and conditions of Sturgill's employment were
governed by the collective bargaining agreement
(“CBA”) between the Union and Schneider. (DE 32-2
at 10, 84-126).
A.
Sturgill's Work as a “Winder” From January
2012 to November 2015
From
her date of hire until late November 2015, Sturgill worked as
a “winder, ” which entailed winding the metal
coils that go inside the transformers. (DE 32-2 at 12, 21).
When newly hired, Sturgill successfully completed a 90-day
probationary period and qualified for the position on April
9, 2012. (DE 32-2 at 12-13). The training was primarily done
by experienced peers who worked in the same department, which
was customary at the Huntington facility. (DE 32-2 at 12).
Sturgill took notes as she was trained and kept the notepad
at her workstation for future reference. (DE 32-2 at 13).
After qualifying as a winder, Sturgill moved from the first
shift to the second, where Tim Gerhart was her supervisor.
(DE 32-2 at 17, 252). Sturgill, like all other hourly
employees, continued to receive regular training on various
aspects of her job functions. (DE 32-2 at 14).
At the
Huntington facility, two mechanisms are used to encourage
employees to improve their performance: informal counseling
discussions, which are memorialized as “documented
discussions”; and formal “corrective
actions.” (DE 32-2 at 16, 19, 224, 253, 256).
Documented discussions are written summaries of one-on-one
discussions between managers and employees on issues such as
performance or conduct, and are typically used to correct
issues before they reach the level of severity where
corrective action is warranted. (DE 32-2 at 19, 224, 253,
256). Corrective actions typically follow five steps of
progressive discipline as outlined in the CBA, which are: (1)
verbal warning, (2) written warning, (3) written reprimand,
(4) suspension, and (5) termination. (DE 32-2 at 16, 84-126,
224). Under the terms of the CBA, corrective actions expire
and are removed from an employee's record if the employee
completes six months without incurring another corrective
action step. (DE 32-2 at 20, 84-126, 224).
During
her employment, Sturgill received 36 documented discussions,
the highest number of any Schneider employee with fewer than
10 years of service.[4] (DE 32-2 at 224). Sturgill was not
aware of all of these documented discussions. (DE 32-2 at
19-20).
During
her time as a winder, Sturgill received six corrective
actions, several due to poor work quality. (DE 32-2 at 16,
136-47, 224, 253). However, three of the six corrective
actions-those occurring in 2012 and 2013-were subsequently
removed from her record in accordance with the terms of the
CBA when they later expired. (DE 32-2 at 16, 136-47, 224).
The remaining three corrective actions occurred in
2015-specifically, on June 12, 2015 (a verbal warning for
failing to following the winding print); July 13, 2015 (a
written warning for failing to follow the winding print); and
November 16, 2015 (a “re-issued” written warning
for failing to follow the winding print). (DE 32-2 at 16,
148-61, 224, 253). Sturgill grieved each of the 2015
corrective actions, triggering an investigation by the Union
and Schneider. (DE 32-2 at 17-18, 224). In each case, the
Union elected not to arbitrate the grievance. (DE 32-2 at
224).
B.
Sturgill's Work as a “Vent Cell Operator”
From November 2015 to July 2016
On
September 9, 2015, Schneider posted an opening for a
ventilated transformer cell operator (“vent cell
operator”) at the Huntington plant. (DE 32-2 at 21,
163). Sturgill bid for the position, and because she had more
seniority than any other employee who bid, she was awarded
the position. (DE 32-2 at 21, 224). Sturgill moved into the
vent cell operator position in late November 2015 and was
assigned to the second shift. (DE 32-2 at 21, 224, 253, 257,
267). Because no second-shift employee was available to train
her, Sturgill had to move to the first shift for her 90-day
qualifying period; during this time, she was trained
primarily by Justin Cole, a coworker. (DE 32-2 at 21, 224,
253). By this time, Gerhart had also moved to the first
shift, so he continued to supervise Sturgill. (DE 32-2 at 21,
252).
According
to Sturgill, about six to eight weeks into her qualification
period some of her male coworkers in the vent cell
department-specifically, Cole, Brian Buck, Charles Curry, and
Tom Haupert, whom Sturgill referred to as “the boys
club”-began ignoring her questions and refusing to
train her. (DE 32-2 at 22, 25, 226). Sturgill told Gerhart on
about 12 different occasions that she was not getting the
training she needed; each time Gerhart would assign an
employee to assist her, and the designated employee complied.
(DE 32-2 at 89-90, 253). This continued throughout
Sturgill's qualification period, and she eventually
qualified for the vent cell operator position on February 21,
2016. (DE 32-2 at 25, 165, 225, 253, 257).
C.
Sturgill's Internal Complaints and Schneider's
Investigation
Five
days later, on Friday, February 26, 2016, Sturgill met with
Christine Troxell, Schneider's Human Resource Business
Partner, to make an internal complaint. (DE 32-2 at 32-34,
223, 225). She complained that a coworker, Neal Butcher, told
her that he heard another coworker, Haupert, call her a
“cunt” on one occasion. (DE 32-2 at 32-34, 167,
225, 230). She also complained that she had not received
adequate training by her male coworkers in the vent cell
department during her qualification period due to her gender,
and that these male coworkers had also not properly trained
other females. (DE 32-2 at 225, 230). Sturgill provided
Troxell with the names of these females and several coworkers
with whom Troxell should speak during her investigation. (DE
32-2 at 33, 225).
Troxell
began her investigation on Monday, February 29, 2016, and
interviewed 27 employees individually that week, including
all of the hourly employees in the vent cell department and
any female employee who formerly worked in the vent cell
department. (DE 32-2 at 33-34, 167, 225). After reviewing all
of the employees' responses, Troxell concluded that
Sturgill's complaints could not be substantiated, and to
some extent were refuted. (DE 32-2 at 226). On or about March
7, 2016, Troxell briefed Tony Robertson, Manufacturing
Manager, who was Gerhart's supervisor during the relevant
period, and Jim Harden, Plant Manager, on her findings,
recommending that Haupert should nevertheless be given a
refresher training on Schneider's anti-harassment policy.
(DE 32-2 at 226, 252, 256-57, 266). Harden and Robertson
agreed with Troxell's conclusions, and Haupert underwent
the refresher training on March 8, 2016. (DE 32-2 at 226,
257, 266).
On
March 9, 2016, Troxell met with Sturgill, Robertson, and Tim
Riemke, a Union representative, to discuss the results of the
investigation. (DE 32-2 at 34-35, 169, 226, 232). Troxell and
Robertson claim that after Troxell informed Sturgill that she
determined no harassment had occurred, Sturgill became angry,
yelled and using profanity, and that at several points during
the meeting, Robertson said “Lisa, language, ” in
an attempt to get her to stop cursing. (DE 32-2 at 226, 234,
257). Sturgill, however, denies that she used “the F
word” during the meeting. (DE 32-2 at 36). She
testified, rather, that during the meeting Robertson became
“aggressive” toward her, acted in a
“threatening manner, ” and tried to
“intimidate” her. (DE 32-2 at 35). She stated
that he told her to “shut up about what was going on
out in the floor about this investigation” because it
was hurting production, and that “he was going to
reprimand [her] if he heard of anything else.” (DE 32-2
at 35). At the end of the meeting, Sturgill asked Troxell to
provide the outcome of the investigation in writing. (DE 32-2
at 34-35, 226, 257). Sturgill filed a grievance with the
Union regarding the outcome of the investigation. (DE 32-2 at
226, 257).
The
next day, March 10, 2016, Robertson; Joe Kellogg, the Union
chief steward; and Claudia Estrada, Schneider's Quality
Manager, met with Sturgill and provided her the written
outcome of Troxell's investigation that Sturgill had
requested. (DE 32-2 at 36, 171-75, 177, 257). Robertson asked
Sturgill to refrain from discussing her complaint or the
investigation with her coworkers on the production floor
during work hours because it was disrupting production;
Sturgill responded that she would “talk to who [she]
wanted.” (DE 32-2 at 35-37, 257, 264). Robertson also
told Sturgill that he had received complaints from her
coworkers that she was writing comments about them in her
notebook. (DE 32-2 at 36, 258, 262, 264). During this
meeting, Sturgill repeatedly interrupted Robertson, and
Robertson eventually told Sturgill to be quiet and listen.
(DE 32-2 at 36, 258, 264). Again, Sturgill felt that
Robertson acted aggressively and in a threatening manner
toward her during the meeting. (DE 32-2 at 35-36, 39).
Eleven
days later, on March 21, 2016, Gerhart issued Sturgill a
written reprimand for wearing improper brazing glasses, which
was considered a serious safety violation. (DE 32-2 at 182,
253-54, 258). Sturgill, however, had been wearing these same
brazing glasses for the past two years. (DE 32-2 at 27, 179,
258). During Schneider's investigation into the incident
and prior to the corrective action being issued, Sturgill
claimed that she had obtained the glasses from a coworker,
then later stated that she had obtained them from Fastenal
(one of Schneider's suppliers of personal protective
equipment), but then later admitted that both statements were
untrue. (DE 32-2 at 26-27, 182, 254, 258). She then claimed
that “the safety guy” two years earlier had
approved the glasses. (DE 32-2 at 26, 179, 258).
On
March 31, 2016, Sturgill met with Harden and complained that
Robertson had harassed and retaliated against her by being
“aggressive” and “threatening” toward
her during their March 10, 2016, meeting and by disciplining
her on March 21, 2016, for wearing improper brazing glasses.
(DE 32-2 at 39, 179, 227, 266-67). Sturgill asked that she
have no further contact with Robertson, and that Riemke act
as her Union representative if she was called in for
discipline. (DE 32-2 at 39, 41, 179, 227, 266-67). Harden
responded that all contact between Sturgill and Robertson
could not be eliminated because he was her second-level
supervisor, but Harden agreed that Schneider would wait for
Riemke before presenting any discipline, except in the event
of an emergency. (DE 32-2 at 39, 41, 179, 227, 266-67).
D.
Sturgill Files Her First Charge of Discrimination With the
EEOC
On
April 28, 2016, Sturgill filed her first Charge of
Discrimination with the EEOC, alleging that: (1) she was
subject to harassment based on her sex when Haupert allegedly
called her a “cunt”; (2) Schneider failed to
properly train her in the vent cell department because of her
sex; and (3) she was retaliated against by Robertson after
Schneider's investigation into her internal complaint.
(DE 32-2 at 42, 81).
Two
months later, on June 29, 2016, Sturgill received a
“suspension, ” the fourth step in the progressive
disciplinary process specified in the CBA, for switching the
shipping labels on two transformers. (DE 32-2 at 26-27, 184,
227, 254, 258). Even though this step is called a suspension,
Sturgill was not required to take any time off from work and
her pay was not impacted. (DE 32-2 at 29, 227). Sturgill
...